Michael Jackson

[Skunkle]

Waters on YouTube of one of their shows performing to Michael Jackson's music. This was apparently originally programmed in 1996 for a show in Brunei (and likely seen by Jackson there, on Brunei's massive Waltzing Waters unit, since it seems he visited for the Sultan's birtday in '96, for which this huge show was purchased and this programming done). The fountain runs to parts of "Remember The Time", "Heal The World", a very sinister "Who Is It", a breathtaking "You Are Not Alone", followed by "I Just Can't Stop Loving You", "Man In The Mirror", and ending with "Earth Song". Childhood memories + WW's Liquid Fireworks = Win in my book.

[Flyndaran]

Oh sorry, I meant in the way of discussion and debate like we are doing here, not in the way of criminal investigation. I misunderstood your last post.

But a debate rarely leads to any form of undeniable truth. I guess I misunderstood your last post too.

[Kalli]

In theory I agree. But why should anyone fund the search that can't lead to a prosecution?

Oh sorry, I meant in the way of discussion and debate like we are doing here, not in the way of criminal investigation. I misunderstood your last post.

[Flyndaran]

I disagree, I think there's something to be said for the pursuit of truth for it's own sake, even when there is no longer anybody to receive justice.
...

In theory I agree. But why should anyone fund the search that can't lead to a prosecution?

[Kalli]

The issue itself has died. Let the living victims rest in peace.
Even if you believe it was all a conspiracy, then the issue is still dead as it's now even more unlikely for the "truth" to come out.

I disagree, I think there's something to be said for the pursuit of truth for it's own sake, even when there is no longer anybody to receive justice.

However, I will concede that this particular debate has been mutilated beyond salvation. If anyone wishes to continue it, I'm happy to do it, but I agree that this particular thread has run its course.

[Flyndaran]

...That, and the whole having 5 older brothers would statistically point to his increased possibility of being gay.

Heh, you read that study too? Even with many older brothers, the absolute statistic would still be below 50%.
Either way, I don't like too much bashing of him. Not because I have any respect for the dead, but because he can't hurt anyone else anymore. The issue itself has died. Let the living victims rest in peace.
Even if you believe it was all a conspiracy, then the issue is still dead as it's now even more unlikely for the "truth" to come out.

[AFPheonix]

I have to admit, I find the whole "Yay, such and such is dead now and therefore can't sue for slander, so let's bring out a scandal book FOR THE WIN!" idea a bit repungnent. It's surely no coincidence that this guy only mentions his book after the funeral. It smacks of cashing in on death.

To be fair, it was already in the works before Michael's death. However, he did have to do a quick rewrite to include his death and memorial in the book, so that was a little tacky.
It does not surprise me one bit about MJ being gay. The man was terrible at picking beards. That, and the whole having 5 older brothers would statistically point to his increased possibility of being gay.

[Kalli]

Not what I heard from his testimony. He had a special room that other adults weren't allowed in.

Source please?

[Lace Neil Singer]

I have to admit, I find the whole "Yay, such and such is dead now and therefore can't sue for slander, so let's bring out a scandal book FOR THE WIN!" idea a bit repungnent. It's surely no coincidence that this guy only mentions his book after the funeral. It smacks of cashing in on death.

[CaptainJaneway]

I am a big fan of Michael. I believe he is innocent of all charges.

Right now I am on information overload but from what I have been reading and watching. In the first case Michael did not want to pay out the money. The insurance company insisted and MJ was very upset as was seeing crying his eyes out over it.

I remember from the second case that the family tried to hit up Jay leno and one other celebrity for money. The kid's mother shaved his head and claimed he had cancer. MJ decided to stop supporting them financially and that is when the shit hit the fan.

I found this video while reading the Michael Jackson board on imdb.
http://atlantis2.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=680097n

That is from the second case.

Besides if he was a child molester wouldn't he be molesting his own children?

There is a book coming out this week by an Ian Halperin called Unmasked. He was at MJ's memorial ceremony. He was one of the ones that at first thought Michael was guilty as sin and he was going to prove it. Well come to find out he said after several years of investigation into MJ's camp and interviewing a thousand kids that stayed at neverland. He said that Michael was innocent and he did not touch any of those kids.

Though he does claim that MJ was gay and had two gay lovers and dressed as a woman. Not taking much stock in that.

Also i think it was Access Hollywood that had on MJ's long time friend Yuri Geller. Yuri stated that he had hypnotized Michael and while he was under he did ask him about touching children. Yuri said the MJ empathically told him no he did not.

If i have the time i will see if i can located the video otherwise i will try and get the video off of my tivo and upload it to youtube.

ETA:
I could be wrong but in the first case wasn't the father a screen writer or something? Michael offered to produce one movie for him but that wasn't good enough the guy wanted 5?

[AFPheonix]

now you too can have Billie Jean stuck in your head.

Oh no, no need to thank me. It was my pleasure.

[Flyndaran]

You keep saying that, about sleeping in the same bed. That was not the case. The children sometimes slept in the same ROOM as Michael, not the same bed.

Not what I heard from his testimony. He had a special room that other adults weren't allowed in.
Either way, the point is quite dead.

[Kalli]

I know that I certainly wouldn't allow any of my prospective children to sleep in the same bed as such an adult man. You may be less discriminating. Your right to do take such risks.

You keep saying that, about sleeping in the same bed. That was not the case. The children sometimes slept in the same ROOM as Michael, not the same bed.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

My point is that everyone more or less believes in people's right to choose what they do, and people are also generally in favor of people staying alive. The issue can be described in those terms but they strike me as a way of trying to swipe high ground out of thin air by accusing the other side of being unilaterally anti-rights or anti-not-dying.

I believe in a woman's right to choose, I also believe in everyone's right to life (liberty and blah blah blah) BUT when it comes to abortion I believe in the woman's rights in that the baby is not yet a person.

Make sense?

I guess I'm just generally against beating around the bush so to speak. Just say it: 'I am for abortion rights', or 'I am against abortion rights'. Alternative naming schemes always struck me as an attempt to get out of actually discussing the issue itself.

A parallel, in a unsurprising vain for me:

Pro-gun and anti-gun:
Everyone wants to be safe and/or to be able to defend themselves.
Everyone wants to keep guns away from criminals.
The actual issue is abolishing or not abolishing the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms for self-defense and/or recreation.

[Kalli]

I believe he did it. You have the right to disbelieve without overwhelming proof. But don't dismiss me please.

I do dismiss your opinion (not you), because you have made absolutely no effort to back it up at all. This is a fair reaction in a debate, as far as I'm concerned.

Also, nobody asked for overwhelming proof. We asked for an explanation of why you believe he is guilty. This is a far cry from overwhelming proof.

In any case, I should have clarified; as in, I mean for both sides to present an argument, rather than just saying "He's guilty, everyone knows it" and "No he's not, stfu".

......


That is what I meant when I refered to defending your position, thank you.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts about what I posted. I made the exact same point as Broom did, and more. Do you have any thoughts? You are the person who asked me to post it, after all.